The swelling coalition against the Stop Online Piracy Act gained three new members on Thursday night: Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum. The fourth debate participant, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), is a long-time opponent of the legislation.

"What is your take on SOPA, and how do you believe it affects Americans," a user asked the candidates via Twitter.

"You're asking a conservative about the economic interests of Hollywood," said former Speaker Newt Gingrich. "On the other hand, you have virtually everybody who's technologically advanced, including Google, YouTube, and Facebook, and all the folks who say 'this is going to totally mess up the Internet, and the bill in its current form is written really badly, and leads to a range of censorship.'"

"I favor freedom," he said. "If a company finds that it has genuinely been infringed upon, it has the right to sue. But the idea that we're going to preemptively have the government start censoring the Internet on behalf of giant corporations' economic interests strikes me as exactly the wrong thing to do."

"I think he got it just about right," said former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. "The law as written is far too intrusive, far too expansive, far too threatening to freedom of speech and movement of information across the Internet. It would have a potentially depressing impact on one of the fastest-growing industries in America.

"If we can find a way to very narrowly, through our current laws go after those people who are pirating, particularly those from offshore, we'll do that," Romney said. "But a very broad law which gives the government the power to start stepping into the Internet and say who can pass what to who, I think that's a mistake, so I'd say no, I'm standing for freedom."

Paul touted his long-standing opposition to the law. "I am pleased that the attitude has sort of mellowed up here, because the Republicans unfortunately have been on the wrong side of this issue," he said. "This bill is not going to pass, but watch out for the next one."

Former Senator Rick Santorum was the only one of the four candidates who had anything good to say about SOPA. While he says he is opposed to the legislation, he insisted that "the Internet is not a free zone where anybody can do anything they want to do. I'm for free but I'm not for people abusing the law, and that's what's happening right now."

Timothy B. Lee
Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times. Emailtimothy.lee@arstechnica.com//Twitter@binarybits

Oh great, Obama is ineffective as a president. Gingrich is a psychopath. If he ever becomes a president, American people and the world can use him as a scapegoat for everything that is wrong with the world. Kind of like George Bush Jr. Mitt is too rich to understand the rest of the 99% of the population. He is also too rich to be taxed at anything above 15% too. Their stand on the SOPA may only help them with more votes with the public. Only politicians who are getting their payrolls from the Entertainment Industry would favor the SOPA.

Pryopizm, how could you say that "regardless his (Gingrich) political stand?" He is running for the president. Basically, as long as he is friendly towards the tech industry, he is fit to become a president even though he may start a war with Iran? Or a trade war with China? Or maybe having another affair with his White House staff members??

I'm sure they'll still be screaming for more and more action to be taken even if it did make it to the law books. Just take a look at DMCA and where we are now. Oh, not to mention that they still have enough money to advertise SOPA on TV and push it with numerous campaigns everywhere.

The DMCA, on the other hand, has been abused by large corporations (Hollywood) time and again to taken down content that they obviously have no legal right to do so (their mass-takedowns on YouTube are a classic example).

And really, the law doesn't appear to be the problem. The problem is Hollywood's antiquated distribution system. It seems to me that the RIAA gets it more so, with the rise of things like iTunes Music Store (and co), Pandora (not so new) and Spotify (quite new in the US) giving people better and easier access to music... and hell, I would say that using Spotify for your music-listening needs is easier than pirating it (although some stuff still isn't on there).

The MPAA has a few equivalents of that, notably Hulu and NetFlix. Unfortunately, Hulu's content is frustratingly limited (time delay after it goes on TV, and then taken down some time after that, with various restrictions on consumption like not being able to watch things on an XBox even with Hulu+!). NetFlix (streaming) has a load of content, but, even that large amount of content isn't that large in comparison to the total amount of content out there. You can't get stuff that's too new, and you also can't get stuff that's too old and a lot of obscure stuff.

Hollywood really COULD effectively kill piracy is they simply embraced technology. I doubt anyone on Ars needs this clarification, but by 'embrace technology' I obviously don't mean 'DRM'. People are willing to pay for easy access to their content... but Hollywood has had to be dragged kicking in screaming... I doubt we'd have Pandora, Hulu, Netflix, Spotify, etc if it wasn't for the pirates.

Oh great, Obama is ineffective as a president. Gingrich is a psychopath. If he ever becomes a president, American people and the world can use him as a scapegoat for everything that is wrong with the world. Kind of like George Bush Jr. Mitt is too rich to understand the rest of the 99% of the population. He is also too rich to be taxed at anything above 15% too. Their stand on the SOPA may only help them with more votes with the public. Only politicians who are getting their payrolls from the Entertainment Industry would favor the SOPA.

You're blasting Mitt as too rich? Gingrich has rich in his name, and credit at Tiffany's.

With the GOP being so against big government, supporting something like SOPA would send the message: "we are against big government, unless it suits us".

It really doesn't make sense for government to be in support of this bill, for reasons of lack of due process, using tax payer's money on behalf of content owners and expanding the coffers of corporations that still seem to be making more money every year, despite the piracy issues. I am not supporting piracy, its just that in current times the economic ramifications of such a bill need to be examined in depth, especially when people in general have less disposable income.

As to Obama being an ineffective president, maybe there is some truth, but given the metaphorical shackles he has been handed by the last president and current congress, then the fact he gets anything done is amazing.

I like Gingrich. Not his policies but the fact that he is way more knowledgeable than your average politician. He has a firm grasp of policies, international politics and is eloquent. He also has balls. Like last night, he was somehow self righteous when John King asked him about his ex wife's allegations. He impeached Clinton for having an affair while having an affair himself and he came off as the good guy. Too bad he is running from the side that wants to send us back to stone age.

He impeached Clinton for having an affair while having an affair himself and he came off as the good guy. Too bad he is running from the side that wants to send us back to stone age.

*sigh*

Because he, as a practicing lawyer, lied to a grand jury and worked at trying to get someone to lie to a grand jury... like a mobster would do.

On the plus side, grabbing a little ass at work isn't some kind of death warrant any more thanks to Clinton.

as far as the stone age, both political parties are only after one thing - power for the government.

At least power held by corporations can't get a gun pointed at your head and sent to prison. You can always choose to not buy Company X's product. When government has all the power and the individual none, the government can take away your freedom.

Or so my great grandfather would have told me had he survived Stalin's "government regulation" of his farm in eastern Russia.

Paul is the only honest one here. The other candidates would support the law if it suited them.

As a test, imagine if the law was called "stop online terrorism act" instead of "stop online piracy act." Same provisions. Do you think they would be against it because it constitutes "big government regulation?"

Big government is only a problem for most of these guys if it's in the area they don't like. Hollywood trends left so they aren't giving up anything by opposing the law. If military interests supported SOPA it would be a different story. No problem with Big Government if it's the military.

Paul of course is the exception. I don't agree with the man, and he may be a crazy racist, but he is principled, honest, and consistent. I respect that.

Ah, the politics come out. Does anyone really think that any politician would really come out on the side of SOPA with all that was in the news lately? It's a political albatross. They will always denounce that which is publicly unpopular and support what is popular. All they care about is votes so they can acquire positions of power. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of all of them, I imagine the only one who really understood it was Newt. Regardless of political stance, he's always come off as a bit of a tech-head.

I was going to say exactly that. Frankly, I'm glad there's at least one person in that position that understands what's going on. It could go a long way to, hopefully, make other people wake up and realize how far behind they are, when he's coming up with good points, and they're just parroting sweeping generalizations...

Mitt is too rich to understand the rest of the 99% of the population. He is also too rich to be taxed at anything above 15% too.

Please tell me one candidate who isn't wealthy in the current race. This nonsense about someone being too wealthy and therefore unable to understand the current economic situation is ridiculous. He is a businessman, ran Bain Capital turning it into an immensely profitable business, and has a Juris Doctor and MBA from Harvard. You'd rather have someone in there that isn't successful, but is simply in the same economic situation as most of the population, running the country? On what qualifications?

If you're going to attack something, then attack their economic viewpoints and what they're proposing. But to just spout that they can't do a good job because they earn x amount of dollars is simply opinion with no supporting fact whatsoever. Sorry but I'm tired of seeing opinions based on conjecture about the effectiveness of a potential candidate based solely on income.

Why does being rich, in and of itself, make you unqualified to be President? If Steve Jobs were alive today and was running for President, you wouldn't vote for him.

Thank you. It's the popular thing to do to chastise people for being successful anymore I guess. Last time I checked, this is the Land of Opportunity. People have been coming to this country since its inception to become successful, and now it's somehow bad.

Everyone except Paul is just a mouth-piece that will say whatever they think will get them elected. They change their minds on topics so fast, it's hard to take them seriously and makes me question their loyalty.

You may not like some of Paul's policies, but at least he's not flip-flopping and back-peddling.

Ah, the politics come out. Does anyone really think that any politician would really come out on the side of SOPA with all that was in the news lately? It's a political albatross. They will always denounce that which is publicly unpopular and support what is popular. All they care about is votes so they can acquire positions of power. Nothing more, nothing less.

There's still a large number of Senators and Representatives supporting SOPA/PIPA (not running for president, mind you, but many up for reelection).

And you really can't say that about Ron Paul. He's had a pretty damn consistent stance on these things for many years (basically, if it gives the federal government more power, it's a safe bet he's against it).

I like Gingrich. Not his policies but the fact that he is way more knowledgeable than your average politician. He has a firm grasp of policies, international politics and is eloquent. He also has balls.

What? At a debate just the other day, Gingrich said dealing with "enemies of America" was simple: "kill them". You call that a firm grasp of international politics? With no mention of intelligence, investigation, any sort of treaties or trials or even a glance toward checking the facts before murdering foreigners? WTF, that's psychotic, not eloquent.

I like Gingrich. Not his policies but the fact that he is way more knowledgeable than your average politician. He has a firm grasp of policies, international politics and is eloquent. He also has balls.

What? At a debate just the other day, Gingrich said dealing with "enemies of America" was simple: "kill them". You call that a firm grasp of international politics. WTF, that's psychotic, not eloquent.

There's this comforting illusion that we all subscribe to from time to time. It's called "The Right Guy At The Top Can Change Everything!" USians seem particularly prone to this, probably because "everyone" votes for the president, and history is largely told in that country as "things presidents did".

Actually, a new president, or CEO, or chairman, or prime minister, or monarch, actually in reality has an extremely limited palette of options to select from, and like the weather, things are pretty much going to be "what it was yesterday" the vast majority of the time.

I mean, what actually changed between "bad president Carter" and "good president Reagan", or if you're too young for that "bad president Bush" and "good president Obama"?

The economy? Nope. That changed along the curve it was already following. The security of the nation? Nope. Foreign policy is one of those things that the incoming "Guy At The Top" actually has the *least* power to change, because if *his* international agreements are going to be trusted, he's gotta hold up the international agreements made by *every single one* of his predecessors. Domestic laws? Sure. A couple of those will be mildly modified, but owing to the law of unintended consequences, we won't know which changes were "good" and which were "bad" until decades have passed.

Does anyone actually believe that if you bought Lincoln, or FDR, back from the dead today, that they'd be more "effective" than Obama, facing as he does the worst economic crisis in 100 years?

1. Long term demographic trends occur. Governments try to mitigate the worst effects, and ride the waves.2. Disjunctions occur (war, climate, bubbles, etc). Governments largely fuck these up, largely because they're impossible to predict, but we'd unquestionably be worse off without government help, no matter how badly organised it might be.3. The economy cycles. Governments *know* they should spend in the bad times and save in the good times. But since no-one has ever figured out how to sell tax rises, we spend in the bad times and *spend more* in the good times.

The thing to do, then, is to select for your government the people *least likely* to let their ideology get in the way when confronted with demographics, or disjunctions, or depressions, and *most likely* to make some attempt to look at the data before trying any more god-damned "solutions".

None of the four guys at the debate Thursday night fit those criteria one little bit whatsoever.

You'd rather have someone in there that isn't successful, but is simply in the same economic situation as most of the population, running the country? On what qualifications?

I don't see why it's not possible to be successful without becoming rich, and to be qualified to be President without being either.

That is true about being successful without being rich, but to not have accomplished any amount of success (particularly in some form of business) just doesn't seem to be Presidential material. The country is a big business, and right now we need someone that can look at it and see what types of things can be done to reduce spending, cut fat wherever possible, and improve the job market. Those are all things that can only be done by someone who understands business.

There's this comforting illusion that we all subscribe to from time to time. It's called "The Right Guy At The Top Can Change Everything!" USians seem particularly prone to this, probably because "everyone" votes for the president, and history is largely told in that country as "things presidents did".

Actually, a new president, or CEO, or chairman, or prime minister, or monarch, actually in reality has an extremely limited palette of options to select from, and like the weather, things are pretty much going to be "what it was yesterday" the vast majority of the time.

I mean, what actually changed between "bad president Carter" and "good president Reagan", or if you're too young for that "bad president Bush" and "good president Obama"?

The economy? Nope. That changed along the curve it was already following. The security of the nation? Nope. Foreign policy is one of those things that the incoming "Guy At The Top" actually has the *least* power to change, because if *his* international agreements are going to be trusted, he's gotta hold up the international agreements made by *every single one* of his predecessors. Domestic laws? Sure. A couple of those will be mildly modified, but owing to the law of unintended consequences, we won't know which changes were "good" and which were "bad" until decades have passed.

Does anyone actually believe that if you bought Lincoln, or FDR, back from the dead today, that they'd be more "effective" than Obama, facing as he does the worst economic crisis in 100 years?

1. Long term demographic trends occur. Governments try to mitigate the worst effects, and ride the waves.2. Disjunctions occur (war, climate, bubbles, etc). Governments largely fuck these up, largely because they're impossible to predict, but we'd unquestionably be worse off without government help, no matter how badly organised it might be.3. The economy cycles. Governments *know* they should spend in the bad times and save in the good times. But since no-one has ever figured out how to sell tax rises, we spend in the bad times and *spend more* in the good times.

The thing to do, then, is to select for your government the people *least likely* to let their ideology get in the way when confronted with demographics, or disjunctions, or depressions, and *most likely* to make some attempt to look at the data before trying any more god-damned "solutions".

None of the four guys at the debate Thursday night fit those criteria one little bit whatsoever.

I'm not saying he did a good thing, but V. I. Lenin disagrees with you.

Russia was barely impacted by the wall street crash due to its economic isolation.

There are extreme measures anyone can take, but if you want to keep playing capitalism then yes, you are limited by the IMFs rules.

Paul of course is the exception. I don't agree with the man, and he may be a crazy racist, but he is principled, honest, and consistent. I respect that.

Have to ask here: What drives the 'racist' label? Is it the articles that others wrote, or the video that others made? If there is something concrete that he personally said, I want to know. Mind you, when he makes a constitutionally correct argument against a culturally popular policy, I can see how it can be misinterpreted, but this is just the hallmark of the man's consistency. Less federal government, period.

Ron Paul, and his son, Senator Rand Paul, were a couple of the earliest to come out solidly against SOPA/PIPA. His views, his answers, and his principles don't change with the wind, unlike every other candidate, either side of the aisle. Check the man's voting record, and if you're looking for an educated candidate, take the time to read one of his many books.

I can't stand Newt, he looks like a Minecraft character brought to life with that huge block head. Also, and quite simply, he's not Ron Paul.

Paul touted his long-standing opposition to the law. "I am pleased that the attitude has sort of mellowed up here, because the Republicans unfortunately have been on the wrong side of this issue," he said. "This bill is not going to pass, but watch out for the next one."

+1 for this guy! Esp the "watch out" part.

Quote:

It seems to me that the RIAA gets it more so, with the rise of things like iTunes Music Store (and co), Pandora (not so new) and Spotify (quite new in the US) giving people better and easier access to music... and hell, I would say that using Spotify for your music-listening needs is easier than pirating it

The RIAA does not get it at all. iTunes was not an "RIAA" invention, as much as I dislike Apple (and voiced it many times over) they came in and shook up the industry in a nice way, all the while banging heads with the dinosaurs in the RIAA.They (Appl/Steve J) had no help from the industry at all, unless the industry was almost backed into a corner and had to pick between two options.

Pandoro I know little about, Spotify was a Swedish invention (ask me, I'm in Sweden) which later came to the US after a crapload of more problems.The RIAA does not get anything, other people invent, then these scumbags spread their umbrella over them and try to take credit.

The MPAA are total morons as well, blinded by greed they want to double (services like) RedBox to release movies only 56 days after release even after getting their way so its 28days after release to save their old models.They cut NetFlix's testicles almost totally off as well recently...Then they want to push SOPA / PIPA with an oil rig down our throats.

These idiots (RIAA/MPAA) think we have an unlimited budget that must only be spent on movies/music, if thats not the case they need to do something about it.

Quote:

There's still a large number of Senators and Representatives supporting SOPA/PIPA (not running for president, mind you, but many up for reelection).

For the love of all that is holy, please keep in mind what the guy above write (and I quoted), but just in case you missed it:

Quote:

There's still a large number of Senators and Representatives supporting SOPA/PIPA (not running for president, mind you, but many up for reelection).

I like Gingrich. Not his policies but the fact that he is way more knowledgeable than your average politician. He has a firm grasp of policies, international politics and is eloquent. He also has balls.

What? At a debate just the other day, Gingrich said dealing with "enemies of America" was simple: "kill them". You call that a firm grasp of international politics? With no mention of intelligence, investigation, any sort of treaties or trials or even a glance toward checking the facts before murdering foreigners? WTF, that's psychotic, not eloquent.

In my humble opinion, I believe that was pandering to the voters, not an actual policy position that he would take. Just like Obama promised to close Guantanamo and then signed a law permitting indefinite detention of American citizens suspected of being terrorists.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not a conservative at all. However I do believe what they say to get elected, and what they do are often at odds with each other. Probably the understatement of the century.

Paul is the only honest one here. The other candidates would support the law if it suited them.

Paul of course is the exception. I don't agree with the man, and he may be a crazy racist, but he is principled, honest, and consistent. I respect that.

I totally agree, other than the crazy racist part. Though Libertarianism is about as flawed as system of government as communism.

All of the other three are merely agreeing with the massive opposition to an all but dead bill "as currently written" to curry favor. It costs them nothing and leaves them open to approve SOPA II with different wording when the time comes.

Only Paul actually opposed it all along, and would oppose future attempts to sneak it through piecemeal.

SOPA is completely unnecessary. It could be argued that the copyright lobby groups already have too much power and influence, and there is already too much abuse of existing powers.

Didn't the government already take down some innocent website for months?Aren't there constant abuses using bulk DMCA take down notices against non infringing material.Didn't the copyright groups essentially use the courts to financially destroy VEOH, even though in the end it was found to be a legitimate business. Didn't the government just take down Mega-upload and arrest foreign principles in foreign countries? (even though they have been acknowledging DMCA take downs).Isn't some kid being extradited from the UK, just for providing links to tv shows FFS??

It really rang hollow to see these candidates come out against SOPA and talk about freedom considering they were all approving of the NDAA in the previous debate (besides RP of course).

The summary of what Ron Paul said is severely lacking as it missed some of his most important points.

“I was the first Republican to sign on with a host of Democrats to oppose this law and we have worked, we have had a concerted effort and I feel like we’re making acheivement there. This bill is not going to pass, but watch out for the next one,” Mr. Paul said. “And I am pleased that the attitude is sort of mellowed up here, because the Republicans unfortunately have been on the wrong side of this issue. And this is a good example on why it’s good to have somebody that can look at civil liberties, and work with coalitions, and bring people together. Freedom and the Constitution bring factions together.”

The first important point made is that SOPA is just one bill, just because SOPA won't pass now doesn't mean congress won't try again. Even the congressman who put forth this bill said this isn't over and he will try again. The second point he made is building coalitions on issues we all share... this guy is talking about working together with democrats on very important civil liberties issues while the rest of the candidates are railing against Obama and the democrats.

Tech people are pretty logical, what makes you think any of the candidates besides Paul has a track record of defending civil liberties (not just freedom of the internet although that's included)?